"Jon" <··@way.com> writes:
> Is it better i.e. quicker,
Quicker isn't always better.
> or more efficent
Efficient isn't always quicker or better.
> for me to do a binary search in LISP or C++...... Why would I
> choose one over the over?
It would be very difficult to do a binary search of Lisp objects using
C++. It would also be difficult (but less difficult) to do a binary
search of C++ objects using Lisp.
Binary search is a technique that can greatly increase the performance
of several algorithms. It matters not what language you write it in,
your only concern should be whether it is applicable to the problem at
hand.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
How about a straight answer
--
Marvellous freeware tools at
http://www.lorriman.demon.co.uk
"Joe Marshall" <···@content-integrity.com> wrote in message
·················@content-integrity.com...
> "Jon" <··@way.com> writes:
>
> > Is it better i.e. quicker,
>
> Quicker isn't always better.
>
> > or more efficent
>
> Efficient isn't always quicker or better.
>
> > for me to do a binary search in LISP or C++...... Why would I
> > choose one over the over?
>
> It would be very difficult to do a binary search of Lisp objects using
> C++. It would also be difficult (but less difficult) to do a binary
> search of C++ objects using Lisp.
>
> Binary search is a technique that can greatly increase the performance
> of several algorithms. It matters not what language you write it in,
> your only concern should be whether it is applicable to the problem at
> hand.
>
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Greg Lorriman wrote in message <979063315.19411.0.nnrp-
>> > or more efficent
>>
>> Efficient isn't always quicker or better.
Efficient means good work done quickly. So by definition, if he wants "more
efficient" then it is ALWAYS quicker and better [that what he currently
has].
Jeff
"Jeff Massung" <········@magpiesystems.com> writes:
> Greg Lorriman wrote in message <979063315.19411.0.nnrp-
> >> > or more efficent
> >>
> >> Efficient isn't always quicker or better.
>
> Efficient means good work done quickly.
Efficient means not wasteful of resources.
There are many ways to be quick that involve `wasting' tremendous
resources. There are some ways to be use resources extremely
parsimoniously, but perhaps require a fair amount of time.
> So by definition, if he wants "more efficient" then it is ALWAYS
> quicker and better [that what he currently has].
I used the definition in Mirriam Webster:
2 : productive of desired effects; especially : productive without
waste
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
"Greg Lorriman" <·············@bigfoot.com> writes:
> How about a straight answer
The straight answer is "it depends". Binary search is an
algorithm. As such it is characterized by a O(lg n) time
complexity. From this point of view it does not matter what algorithm
you choose.
The second part of the straight answer is that you should always
choose Common Lisp :)
Cheers
>
> --
> Marvellous freeware tools at
> http://www.lorriman.demon.co.uk
>
>
> "Joe Marshall" <···@content-integrity.com> wrote in message
> ·················@content-integrity.com...
> > "Jon" <··@way.com> writes:
> >
> > > Is it better i.e. quicker,
> >
> > Quicker isn't always better.
> >
> > > or more efficent
> >
> > Efficient isn't always quicker or better.
> >
> > > for me to do a binary search in LISP or C++...... Why would I
> > > choose one over the over?
> >
> > It would be very difficult to do a binary search of Lisp objects using
> > C++. It would also be difficult (but less difficult) to do a binary
> > search of C++ objects using Lisp.
> >
> > Binary search is a technique that can greatly increase the performance
> > of several algorithms. It matters not what language you write it in,
> > your only concern should be whether it is applicable to the problem at
> > hand.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
>
>
--
Marco Antoniotti =============================================================
NYU Bioinformatics Group tel. +1 - 212 - 998 3488
719 Broadway 12th Floor fax +1 - 212 - 995 4122
New York, NY 10003, USA http://galt.mrl.nyu.edu/valis
Like DNA, such a language [Lisp] does not go out of style.
Paul Graham, ANSI Common Lisp
"Greg Lorriman" <·············@bigfoot.com> writes:
> How about a straight answer
What answer do you want?
`Oh yes, C++ will always do a binary search quicker than Lisp, no
matter what the data are, how much of it there is, how the search
keys are computed, and what the intended use of the result is.'
> > Binary search is a technique that can greatly increase the performance
> > of several algorithms. It matters not what language you write it in,
> > your only concern should be whether it is applicable to the problem at
> > hand.
What do you find `crooked' about this answer?
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
"Greg Lorriman" <·············@bigfoot.com> writes:
> How about a straight answer
Did you try reading beyond the first sentence of the reply you got?
> > It would be very difficult to do a binary search of Lisp objects using
> > C++. It would also be difficult (but less difficult) to do a binary
> > search of C++ objects using Lisp.
> >
> > Binary search is a technique that can greatly increase the performance
> > of several algorithms. It matters not what language you write it in,
> > your only concern should be whether it is applicable to the problem at
> > hand.
-dan
--
http://ww.telent.net/cliki/ - Link farm for free CL-on-Unix resources